Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1333334336338339730

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I really doubt 200 lbs would make a dent in FE, let along a 4 mpg impact.

    I know when I have a 200 lb passenger in my 05 Mazda6, my FE does not go down at all.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I'm not really sure if the up coming TL is actually a mid sizer or not, however, I thought I would comment on the official photo Acura released. I like it, except for the grille. What the heck happened?? What is with Acura and their need to put a shield on the front of their new designs?!
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    It's becoming a recurring theme at the Honda/Acura design center. FAIL.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I know when I have a 200 lb passenger in my 05 Mazda6, my FE does not go down at all.

    I recently read something that claimed every 25 pounds reduces mpg by 1%. If true, that's mean an 8% drop in FE with an additional 200 pounds.

    I can not believe that it would have that much impact. OTOH, if your car weighs 3000 pounds and you reduce that by 2500 pounds, you would certainly get a big increase in mpg and 25 pounds would be 1% of that change in weight.

    EPA says: An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,703
    That would apply more to city FE but on the highway it doesn't take much hp to keep an extra 200 lbs moving compared to the HP required to overcome wind resistance at higher speeds. That's why mileage drops so much when you go from 60 to 80 e.g.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,010
    I don't know where it is exactly in the Illinois code but where I got the info from was the Chicago Tribune. Every once in awhile someone will write in to the Sunday Transportation Section editors with a question about doc fees and they explain the state law in detail. It's always the same rule about charging everybody the same amount, etc but the amount allowed is revised upward(of course) every few years.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Yes, they have an interesting chart on that too...

    image
  • moocow1moocow1 Posts: 230
    Heh that looks like for a pretty terrible car. Most mid-size sedans get over 35mpg at 55, probably closer to 40. And I know mine gets over 30mpg even at 75-80.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    It's always the same rule about charging everybody the same amount

    Which is meaningless in the end, since the price paid is the document fee plus vehicle price.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,703
    Who said it was even a real car? It's just an example. And I doubt the average person could get 40 mpg in a midsized sedan even at 55.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If I can do it at 70 mph in my 2.4L Accord ('06) without doing anything but driving down the road and not changing my speed, the average person can CERTAINLY do it at 55mph.

    And no, this wasn't an "instant readout" kind of thing. This was calculated manually (miles driven/gallons pumped on the refill). Not a one-time thing, either. I average 37-38 MPG on trips now, with the E-10 blend.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,010
    Man, don't start that one. People with the computers will get a 40mpg reading for 10 minutes and all of a sudden that becomes their mantra...."I get 40 mpg freeway with this thing".
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,010
    Which is meaningless in the end, since the price paid is the document fee plus vehicle price

    Of course the bottom line is the sum of the two---but at least there is one constant for everyone that doesn't need to be negotiated.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The point of that is just to show a typical drop in mpg with speed. Looks like about 25% drop going from 55 to 75 mph. If that is correct then near 40 mpg at 55 mph may be about right. I'll never know...I can't drive 55. I do get over 30 mpg at 70-75, though.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    My mileage is terrible. I get only 15mpg at 150 mph. :confuse
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Why are you ignoring the extra gear in the transmission?

    In general, more is better, for fuel efficiency and performance. However, I think matching the powerband of the engine, with the gearing in the transmission is more important. If the transmission and engine are not matched up well, the extra gear is not going to make up for it. For example, if the 6th gear is taller than a 5th gear would have been, it will help fuel efficiency, but it will need to downshift more for even slight inclines. More gears also means more shifting. If you make the transmission reluctant to downshift, that will also help fuel efficiency, but who wants to have to push the accelerator to the floor, to get the tranny to downshift? I don't want better mileage, at the expense of drivability. Where will it end? When we have transmissions with 10 gears? 20? Most cars in the 70's were 3 speed automatics. Now we have 6. I think we are getting to the point where more gears is not much of a benefit anymore.
  • moocow1moocow1 Posts: 230
    That sounds like a GREAT problem to have. Where we finally don't need additional gears in our transmissions. If 6 is enough to be good enough, we can focus on improving other things in a car. Plenty of ways to work on performance and fuel economy :) I'd certainly like to see more midsize sedans with weights around 2900-3000 instead of 3300-3500.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,755
    my fusion has a 6 speed. gears 1 and 2 are very close to each other. i think 5 and 6 might be, too. my guess is, the new 3 is close to what the old 2 was and the new 4 is close to what the old 3 was. it is not linear progression.
    when you need a downshift from top gear(new 6, old 4), it drops a smaller amount into 5, instead of 4(old 3).
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    For example, if the 6th gear is taller than a 5th gear would have been, it will help fuel efficiency, but it will need to downshift more for even slight inclines. More gears also means more shifting. If you make the transmission reluctant to downshift, that will also help fuel efficiency, but who wants to have to push the accelerator to the floor, to get the tranny to downshift? I don't want better mileage, at the expense of drivability. Where will it end? When we have transmissions with 10 gears? 20? Most cars in the 70's were 3 speed automatics. Now we have 6. I think we are getting to the point where more gears is not much of a benefit anymore.

    I am a big fan of 5 and 6 speeds where the top gear is actually an overdrive. Engines are powerful enough to get up all but the steepest inclines regardless of gear, and my foot would be more than willing to depress the pedal on the left while my arm relocates the gear selector into the next lower gear, either 4th or 5th to complete my climb, or possibly 3rd if I need to pass that line of trucks and RVs.
  • milkman1milkman1 Posts: 80
    I test drove the malibu and didn't feel like the gear set up favored efficiency I just felt like the car felt a little heavy, could have performed better with better tires, and didn't have a good field of vision or as much interior space. And I know that sounds harsh, but I liked the car. If they would tune it a bit and fix that trunk they might be in the contest.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I am a big fan of 5 and 6 speeds where the top gear is actually an overdrive. Engines are powerful enough to get up all but the steepest inclines regardless of gear, and my foot would be more than willing to depress the pedal on the left while my arm relocates the gear selector into the next lower gear, either 4th or 5th to complete my climb, or possibly 3rd if I need to pass that line of trucks and RVs.

    Manual tranny would be nice, at times. But those times would be few and far between. An automatic transmission that shifts quickly, and predictably, is perfect for me. If I can easily control the transmission with my right foot, it's all good. :D
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    kdshapiro My mileage is terrible. I get only 15mpg at 150 mph. :confuse

    15 mpg is not terrible. Is this city or highway driving?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,703
    At 150 mph I certainly hope it's a deserted highway........ ;)
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    That's why some manufacturers are going to CVT's....infinite gearing possibilities.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    infinite gearing possibilities

    Felt infinite [non-permissible content removed] too...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Watch your mouth young man...

    After being in the Altima and a Murano, both with CVTs, I must say I really like them.
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    Let's hope he meant shiFty. :shades:
  • madpistolmadpistol Posts: 126
    "Felt infinite [non-permissible content removed] too...."

    So that's the reason the Altima is sitting @ 9.3 right now? Funny how the Camry and Accord aren't that high....
  • karpediemkarpediem Posts: 46
    Before someone says the Accord has more reviews...it doesn't. Combine the 2007 and 2008 reviews for the Altima (same car) and it's been reviewed 425 times...still at a 9.3. CVT isn't for everyone though, but once you learn how to drive it, it's pretty sweet.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    Felt infinite shi?ty too...

    Brilliant response...

    Better get used to the CVT...you're going to see more and more of them...
Sign In or Register to comment.